[And He Walks With Me] Matthew 1
Author’s Note: Below are some thoughts and comments resulting from my personal Bible study in Matthew. The primary objective of this study is to help myself grow in my relationship with the Lord, but I am sharing them here in the hopes that someone else may benefit as well. The notes were taken while reading from the Christian Standard Bible (CSB) as it appears on BibleGateway.com.
1-17 By the start of the New Testament, genealogies were highly valued in Jewish culture. The ability to trace one’s heritage back to Abraham was always important to Jews, but prior to the exile, it was taken for granted. When the northern kingdom fell to the Assyrians, and when the southern kingdom fell to the Babylonians, many Jews lost the records of their family lines. Worse, in the diaspora, many Jews intermarried with their Gentile neighbors. For example, those who were left in the northern kingdom intermarried with the Gentiles resettled in the territory by the Assyrians to create the Samaritans, and those scattered throughout the world began marrying their Gentile neighbors out of necessity (e.g., Timothy was the son of a believing Jewish woman (i.e., Eunice, 2 Tim 1:5), but his father was a Greek (Acts 16:1)). When the Jews were allowed to return to Jerusalem after the exile, they were divided into those who could prove their ancestral families and lineage and those who could not (Ezra 2:59; Nehemiah 7:61). These were at least initially disqualified from the priesthood (Ezra 2:62-63; Nehemiah 7:64-65). Eventually, those who could not provide genealogical records were allowed to participate in Jewish communities, but they were relegated to a second-class status. Given the Jewish audience of Matthew’s gospel, it was therefore essential that a genealogical record of Jesus be provided.
Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus differs from the record provided in Luke 3:23-38. Scholars have theorized that Matthew provided the Jesus’ legal genealogy, which was traced through Joseph, while Luke provided Jesus’ biological genealogy, which was traced through Mary.
Like all genealogies of the day, Matthew’s genealogy traces Jesus’ heritage through the male ancestors. It begins with Abraham, connects to David, and then connects to Joseph the husband of Mary, who gave birth to Jesus who is called the Messiah. However, there are at least two remarkable peculiarities about this genealogy. First, like many ancient genealogies, it is less about providing a complete record of every generation than it is about showing connections. Therefore, Matthew skipped some generations along the way. Second, this genealogy stands out for its inclusion of women. No doubt, this was influenced by the fact that Mary was Jesus’ only biological parent, but other key women are also included: Tamar (3), Rahab (5), Ruth (5), Uriah’s wife (6), and Mary (16). This is unprecedented and speaks to (1) the way God’s redemptive plan rests on women as well as men and (2) Christianity would rewrite the norms and mores of the patriarchal culture. In fact, the five women mentioned in this genealogy each received more attention than many of the men in the list.
3 The inclusion of Tamar in Jesus’ genealogy is an interesting choice. The account of Judah and Tamar, recorded in Genesis 38, is an example of the brokenness caused by sin. Yet, she is incorporated into the family line of Jesus.
5 The inclusion of Rahab is significant for three reasons. First, she is a woman. See notes on 1:1-17. Second, she is a Gentile. Rahab’s account is recorded Joshua 2:1-24; 6:17, 22-27. Third, she was a prostitute. Her inclusion shows that women who were guilty of sin are not excluded from God’s redemptive plan.
Like Rahab, Ruth was a Gentile woman included in Jesus’ genealogy. Her account can be found in Ruth 1-4. Her inclusion here dispels the assertion that the Messiah is for Jewish people only. He is, in fact, from and for all people.
6 The inclusion of Uriah’s wife is curious because she is not named. Also, her inclusion here reinforces the notion that God can bring good out of the terrible brokenness that sin causes. See 2 Samuel 11:1-12:31.
6-11 Tracing Jesus’ genealogy through the royal line of David has several effects. First, it connects Jesus to the royal line, establishing him as the rightful heir of the throne of David. Second, it shows that God is working even through the checkerboard of history. His plan continues through good and bad, and he is not thwarted by wicked people and the things they do.
17 Jesus’ genealogy is not exhaustive. Also, the three sections are not exactly equal in number, despite the assertion that there were fourteen generations between Abraham and David, David and the exile, and the exile and Christ. Therefore, we should not put too much stress upon the number here. Rather, Matthew’s point seems to be that the intervals between those key instances of divine intervention in Israel’s history – the patriarchs, the monarchy, the exile, and now Christ – were roughly equal. [138]
18-19 It was common for biblical writers to understate things. There were several contextual factors driving this penchant for understatement, but it was expected that readers would read between the lines and fill in the blanks. In this case, we must not allow Matthew’s understatement to belie the full impact of the virgin birth. Consider the personal, social, financial, and even criminal implications for Mary to be found pregnant before her wedding. Consider also the repercussions for Joseph.
Matthew’s account focuses on Joseph’s perspective. Therefore, it provides little insight into Mary’s experience of the virgin birth. See Luke 1:26-45.
It is important to recognize the magnitude of Joseph’s choice here. If he proceed with the wedding, everyone would assume the baby was his. In a small, highly conservative town like Nazareth, this would have been scandalous. People would whisper. His reputation would be trashed. He would probably suffer financially as people chose not to do business with him. People would talk about him rather than to him at community functions. On the other hand, if he called off the wedding, it would have profound implications for Mary and her family. To abort the wedding would mean accusing Mary of adultery. There would be little chance anyone would consider marrying her again, and her father would have to provide for her and the child for the rest of their lives. Moreover, if her family had paid Joseph a dowry, it would have been forfeit, likely leaving them in severe financial straits. There would have been great shame, leading to ostracism, and there may have even been criminal charges. Technically, Jews were prohibited under Roman law from inflicting the death penalty, but on rare occasions, mobs formed to enact this Old Testament punishment. See Deuteronomy 22:22-24.
The text indicates that Joseph’s righteousness drives his desire to avoid disgracing Mary privately. Therefore, rather than publicly accusing her of adultery and making a public spectacle of the affair, he resolved to divorce her secretly. This was necessary because ancient betrothals were essentially contracts between two families. Consequently, betrothed persons were considered married even though they did not yet live together and the relationship was not yet consummated, and a legal divorce was required to terminate the contract. Joseph’s proposal was to invite two people (i.e., the minimum number of witnesses required) and provide Mary with a written certificate of divorce. Assuming Joseph chose men of discretion, the people would still have questions and rumors, but they would be unable to prove anything. The 2023 film Journey to Bethlehem does a fantastic job of presenting the conflict Joseph must have felt as he considered these things.
20-21 Dreams were considered important avenues for revelation, and angels appearing in dreams were not to be taken lightly. See note on Genesis 40:8.
23 The quote is from Isaiah 7:14. Interestingly, Matthew here used the Septuagint (LXX) translation of Isaiah 7:14. While his interest in pointing out fulfilled prophecy certainly indicates that his intended audience was Jewish, his use of this Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament suggests that his early readers were thoroughly Hellenized and therefore more comfortable with the Greek language than the Hebrew language. This, then, serves as a key example of contextualization. That is, Matthew made a point to convey the good news of Jesus in a way that his readers would understand even though it defied some traditions. We also should be far more interested in effectively communicating the gospel than preserving traditions!
Matthew emphasizes the importance of Immanuel, even offering the translation: God is with us. Mark’s and Luke’s gospels will demonstrate Jesus’ presence among and alignment with people in practical ways, and John’s gospel will provide a similar emphasis in John 1:14.
24 It is important to recognize that Joseph did as the Lord’s angel had commanded him. That is, he was obedient despite his emotional state, practical concerns, and so much more. Moreover, he did it when [he] woke up. That is, he did not hesitate or delay. He had heard the command of the Lord, and he moved as quickly as possible to obey. We should follow Joseph’s example!
25 This verse has sparked an interesting debate among scholars. On the one hand, Catholics and a few others interpret did not have sexual relations with her until she gave birth to a son to mean that Joseph never had sexual relations with Mary. Other scholars, however, argue that this abstinence lasted only until she gave birth to a son. How we answer this has implications for other passages (e.g., Matthew 12:46-50; 13:55-56).
In the Bible, names were considered significant. Like windows into the soul, they were thought to embody the character and destiny of a person. The name Jesus was the first-century equivalent of Joshua meaning “God saves.” It was a fitting name for the Savior of the world!